From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 16:12:11 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Provide more fine grained control over multipathing
In-Reply-To: <20180525135813.GB9591@redhat.com>
References: <20180525125322.15398-1-jthumshirn@suse.de>
 <20180525130535.GA24239@lst.de> <20180525135813.GB9591@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20180525141211.GA25971@lst.de>

On Fri, May 25, 2018@09:58:13AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> We all basically knew this would be your position.  But at this year's
> LSF we pretty quickly reached consensus that we do in fact need this.
> Except for yourself, Sagi and afaik Martin George: all on the cc were in
> attendance and agreed.

And I very mich disagree, and you'd bette come up with a good reason
to overide me as the author and maintainer of this code.

> And since then we've exchanged mails to refine and test Johannes'
> implementation.

Since when was acting behind the scenes a good argument for anything?

> Hopefully this clarifies things, thanks.

It doesn't.

The whole point we have native multipath in nvme is because dm-multipath
is the wrong architecture (and has been, long predating you, nothing
personal).  And I don't want to be stuck additional decades with this
in nvme.  We allowed a global opt-in to ease the three people in the
world with existing setups to keep using that, but I also said I
won't go any step further.  And I stand to that.